Really? I had no idea. Always thought it was mostly men. I mean... if the viking ship sinks, then both, men and women and possibly the children die. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the women stay at home and raise the children? Do you have any articles to link that discuss this?

Steampunkette's misunderstanding a study... which is fair enough as almost all of the reporting on the study equally misunderstood it. The study itself can be found here and a typical article about it can be seen here.

There's a really good breakdown of what the study actually says here and a good comment actually under the linked article above (which the article actually links to). In brief, they studied 13 bodies and, by using bone analysis rather than grave goods they identified that a higher percentage of viking women were around at that site (and thus presumably in general during the invasion of England but that's a large extrapolation) than previously thought and that they arrived in England earlier than thought but it provides absolutely no evidence that they were warriors... the study itself uses the term "settlers". We're pretty much certain there were some viking shield maidens/warrior women but this study doesn't delve into that at all (the conclusion it reaches is that women and children came over to settle earlier than previously thought) the 50% of viking warriors was female thing is a combination of poor reporting and wishful thinking.

Of the 10 graves (7 people were buried in three of the graves) 6 contained knives, swords, axes, or arrowheads. 3 of the graves with blades contained women, one of which was buried with her two sons. The other three graves contained men.

Based on that, about half of the people buried with weapons were women, not men.

Sure, you could argue that it might have been a kitchen knife or some small survival tool, but then you've got 2-3 women buried with swords, axes, and hammers (one of the bodies couldn't be identified on a gender basis).

And sure, it's only 13 corpses in a single community in a wave of armed settlers rather than a comprehensive check of every set of bones we've got. But which is a more logical conclusion, that the one time someone attempted to identify by studying the bones they managed to luck out and grab one of the handful of egalitarian viking settlements or that it's a hell of a lot more common than we previously expected because we weren't bothering to check beyond "Weapons, that's a dude!"?

Also: Say what you want about settlers versus warriors. If you're wearing swords and axes when you "Settle" it's pretty clear you're a warrior, even if your main thrust in life isn't to slaughter the innocent and steal shit. You still got trained, and armed, and invade another country wearing weapons of war. The US Army Corps of Engineers are still soldiers when they're building a bridge or a bunker.

Also: Say what you want about settlers versus warriors. If you're wearing swords and axes when you "Settle" it's pretty clear you're a warrior, even if your main thrust in life isn't to slaughter the innocent and steal shit. You still got trained, and armed, and invade another country wearing weapons of war. The US Army Corps of Engineers are still soldiers when they're building a bridge or a bunker.

The pioneers who traveled out to settle the American West carried guns, both to hunt and to defend themselves from bandits or hostile natives. Do you also consider them to be 'warriors'?

We have the burials of a number of Viking children with weapons; I assume we're not likewise using that as evidence that the viking armies contained a significant number of warrior children?

Just because someone is buried with a sword no-more makes one a warrior than one being buried with an apron or a broach makes them a housewife/husband. That's the danger (something the study makes clear) of reading too much into grave-goods. To quote the study itself (emphasis mine):

Quote

The presence of Norse women during the campaigning period, as indicated by the results from Heath Wood and Repton, suggests that some women had come to England as the partners of warriors in the great army, as was the case with the 890s army.

Quote

As it can be demonstrated that women and probably children accompanied the great army of the 860s and 870s it increases the possibility that that army had also arrived in England with the intention of winning a homeland.

Here's the topic about the viking study. I think it'd be a good idea to take the debate and discussion there, just because the topic already exists. Or if you'd like to continue here, by all means, I suppose. Thought I'd try to help out.

And while an axe or sword or knife is really useful in killing a person: If you're trying to kill an attacking animal with a sword you have already failed.

That didn't answer the question. The settlers can't be said to have been 'invading' anything in most cases; Native American tribes didn't recognize or adhere to the same concepts of property ownership or territory that white countries did, nor did the white politicians and settlers accept native sovereignty (which is incredibly sad and shameful in its own right, but not relevant) - you can't invade something no one owns or claims to own, not even the current occupants. Where they were moving into/onto recognized native tribal lands, they were typically escorted by actual soldiers of the U.S. Army.

As for weapons, what about spears? The spear, and its descendants in the polearm family, were excellent tools for killing people for a very long time, and they've also been the pre-eminent weapon for hunting certain animals (boar comes to mind) for an equally long time, eventually replaced roughly simultaneously by modern firearms. If the viking bodies in question had possessed spears instead of swords (being another common Viking weapon), would you not consider them to be warriors anymore?

"They didn't conceptualize it as ownership" Semantics. If I pick up a rock and shape it into a tool and have no concept of ownership and you take it away from me the State will still prosecute you for theft by taking, even if I don't recognize what you've done is theft.

As a nation we did that on a biblical scale. And you can try to argue the semantics of it all you like but it doesn't change the fact that the "Hostile Natives" you were talking about were trying to get their land back, fight off invaders, or otherwise seek justice on "Settlers" who wronged them.

"They didn't conceptualize it as ownership" Semantics. If I pick up a rock and shape it into a tool and have no concept of ownership and you take it away from me the State will still prosecute you for theft by taking, even if I don't recognize what you've done is theft.

As a nation we did that on a biblical scale. And you can try to argue the semantics of it all you like but it doesn't change the fact that the "Hostile Natives" you were talking about were trying to get their land back, fight off invaders, or otherwise seek justice on "Settlers" who wronged them.

Invaders is the appropriate term, there.

Read the whole post before you reply, please. You do not have a concept of ownership for your rock tool...but in this case, the State does not either, because it doesn't think that tool is yours in the first place. So no, it won't prosecute, but it will permit the second person pay a fee to purchase ownership papers for the rock tool, then send its police to arrest you when you try and take your rock tool back. The western settlement was a lot more complicated than you want to admit, and hardly the 'evil white man against noble Indian' you want to paint it as...many of those settlers needed their guns to defend against natives who wanted to murder them and their families, loot their homesteads, and trade/sell the contents to other natives. Many settlers got along absolutely great with their native neighbors on an individual scale. Many settlers were simply ambivalent about the native existence, and just wanted land for themselves. Many settlers were actively prejudiced against the natives and eager to take 'their' land for America. The only 'invaders' present in this entire situation would be the U.S. Army troops. Oddly enough, the exact same argument you just used by citing the Army Corp of Engineers, who are still soldiers...because they're in the army, being a soldier is literally their job description.

It's not semantics when you're making up a new definition of a word to defend your position, literally redefining civilian non-combatants as invading warriors. Please support your debating position with facts, rather than conjecture.

And yes. It was an invasion and a theft of land. You can spin it any way you like it, but it remains the same. You can say that people didn't care about other people's rights, but that doesn't change what it was: An invasion by a technologically advanced society.

None of those invaders would have needed their guns to shoot Native Americans if they didn't invade the Americas in the first place.

There is no way you can spin it that won't come out the exact same way: The Colonist Invaders attacked indigenous people, stole their land, murdered them by the thousands, and destroyed their way of life and their culture. Whether or not the invaders considered it a crime or not doesn't change any of that. Whether or not their intent was to murder and steal or just steal because they didn't have any respect for other people's claims is irrelevant.

They were still armed invaders.

As for the Corps of Engineers: Yep. They're soldiers. They're also builders. Do you know why we don't have "Settlers" invading other people's land to be a perfect parallel? Because we now recognize it for what it is.

ALL of the Colonists, whether they came with guns for the express purpose of Murder or they came to carve out America or they just came because they were told "Free Land!" and were dumb enough to believe it: All of them were invaders.

There is no way you can spin it that won't come out the exact same way: The Colonist Invaders attacked indigenous people, stole their land, murdered them by the thousands, and destroyed their way of life and their culture. Whether or not the invaders considered it a crime or not doesn't change any of that. Whether or not their intent was to murder and steal or just steal because they didn't have any respect for other people's claims is irrelevant.

They were still armed invaders.

Intent isn't magic. Outcome is paramount. Ask a native if the settlers were invaders, if you can find one.

Speaking of which, for the sake of the topic I decided to share a specific detail about myself that my ex found appalling. If I need some alone time with myself, so to speak, I always think about female parts. Not that they'd be separate from the woman but I basically focus on parts and probably objectify the female body, yes. Heck, sometimes it makes it easier to think of fantasy races(elves, draenei etc) for me instead of real people. That, or porn actresses. However, I cannot ever bring myself to masturbate to people that I know - not even actresses. If I've seen the actress in a proper movie, not some mindless porn, I just can't do it. The ex I mentioned got mad at me because she was probably insulted by the fact that I can't toy with myself using her pictures or imagining her and its pretty important for a woman to be acknowledged as beautiful, isnt it? Even with her full consent I just somehow couldn't do it. Not that I had a strong moral stand on it, my conscious just didn't let me. It simply felt 'wrong' to create a duplicate of the real person in my own mind and make them act how I'd find it pleasing. On the other hand, just focusing on the body without giving it a name seemed much easier. Whenever I do give the woman a personality, its a fictional woman of my own imagination, usually not even entirely human(again, elf or some persian princess or something like that).

So its okay to beat off to Jessie Jane, but not Natalie Portman because Jessie Jane is a porn actress and Natalie Portman is a 'legit' actress?

THAT is objectification, plain and simple.

Porn actresses (and actors) ARE real people. They exist, they have thoughts, they have feelings, personalities. What you're doing is reducing them down to merely their onscreen image, which, yes, is highly sexual. But you're taking away their basic humanity....why? Just because they are a porn actress? Natalie Portman is no more of a person than Jessie Jane is, and Jessie Jane isn't less of a person than Natalie Portman just because of her line of work. You don't know either one of them, so they are both, to you, merely images on a screen. Yet somehow you classify them differently.

Not cool bro.

I'm not trying to be rude, or argumentative because I actually see where you're coming from, I don't masturbate to thoughts or images of people that I know personally either. Its sorta weird to me.